Marx-Engels | Lenin | Stalin | Home Page
6. The adventurous plans of the world domination of the American financial oligarchy and the aggravation of the Anglo-American contradictions
During the Second World War, the United States was increasingly strengthened at the expense of its rival England. In particular, they almost completely ousted their British competitors from the markets of Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
As the bloc of fascist aggressors weakened during the Second World War, Britain's position in relation to the United States began to improve somewhat. The British monopolies paid more attention to post-war problems. The American monopolies and financial tycoons began to do the same, as well as summing up the results of the war. The American financial oligarchy could state that, on the whole, the correlation of forces between British and American imperialism had drastically changed in comparison with the pre-war one in favor of the United States. England, despite some strengthening of its positions by the end of the war, was nevertheless weakened in economic, political, and military terms.
In World War II, Britain's expenditures in constant prices were more than three times higher than her expenditures in World War I. Its public debt has grown almost three times during the war. The British monopolies made huge profits during the war, but they were weaker than the Americans, who plundered much more and suffered almost no losses. In particular, the English bourgeoisie lost at least half of their capital invested outside of Great Britain.
The national wealth of Great Britain as a whole has fallen by about £7.5 billion during the war.
Until 1943 alone, £875 million worth of British securities were sold. Art., gold and currency - by 650 million. If on the eve of the First World War 50% of all foreign investments of the capitalist countries belonged to England and before the Second World War still about 30% of these investments were in the hands of the British, then at the end of the Second World War they controlled no more than 20% of all long-term foreign investment.
The economic position of England in her empire were greatly weakened. The share of England in Canada's imports decreased from 1938 to 1945 from 15 to 9%, in Australia's imports - from 42 to 37%, in New Zealand's imports - from 60 to 37%. In India's imports from 1938/39 to 1945/46, the US share increased from 7.4 to 28%, in India's exports from 8.3 to 25.6% (1). A significant military debt of England to the dominions and colonies was formed. By the end of the war, this debt had reached nearly £3 billion. Art., and about 40% of this debt fell on India. Although England did not pay her war debt, it goes without saying that the economic positions of British imperialism in the colonies and dominions were by no means strengthened as a result of this debt.
The national wealth of the United States, concentrated in the hands of a few rich people, did not decrease during the Second World War, but even increased significantly due to the relatively small participation of this country in hostilities, and also due to the fact that the war did not spread to American territories. The financial oligarchy of the United States profited during the war on the supply of weapons, on the robbery of other countries; even more than during the First World War, it has become a creditor to other nations, England especially owed her a lot.
US foreign investment without old war debts, which, according to the calculations of the US Treasury, amounted to 11.4 billion dollars in 1939, increased by 1943 to 13.5 billion and in 1945 amounted to 17.3 billion dollars. At the same time, US direct investment rose to 54% against 47% in 1939. In England alone, direct American investment exceeded half a billion dollars.
English lords and capitalists played the role of petitioners to the Wall Street magnates' adoptive tycoons. In his speeches delivered in the United States, British Prime Minister Churchill, a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, put forward as his "special merit" the fact that his mother was an American, born in Rochester, and that he was therefore half American.
At the same time, the British imperialists tried to save their capital so that after the war they would be able to resist the United States.
These plans were consistent with the political and strategic "advice" of the English military "theorist" and observer Liddel Hart, based on the wolf laws of capitalism and intended for Churchill's ministers and politicians. They concerned the behavior of the British imperialists towards their allies. Liddel Hart, in the second edition of his book The Path to Military Victory, published in 1942, recommended that the British government pursue a policy of maximally weakening its allies, since after the war they would become enemies of England. At the same time, he suggested not forgetting the fact that England's opponents in the Second World War are at the same time potential allies, and therefore, during the war, one should not pursue a policy of destruction, but, on the contrary, a policy of saving their forces (2) .
The representatives of the declining British imperialism did not dare to publicize their plans for world domination as openly as did the American monopolies and their agents. But they, too, were counting on the revival and even strengthening of their power at the expense of their competitors, other imperialist states. The hard-nosed conservative and reactionary Samuel Hoare reports in his memoirs that at the end of the war he hoped that "Great Britain would prove to be the strongest military power in Europe."
The imperialist pretensions of the American monopolies, of course, were aimed primarily at the decrepit British Empire. With the outbreak of the Pacific War, the troubadours of American finance capital argued strenuously that the "American age" had arrived and that therefore the "American order" should be extended to all continents and oceans. As for the Pacific Ocean, according to their plans, it was supposed to be turned into an "American lake". The establishment of Wall Street dominion in the Pacific Ocean was to be accomplished by completely ousting British imperialism from there, or by completely subordinating British interests and British policy to US monopolies, by turning British monopoly capital into Wall Street's clerk.
At the very beginning of the Pacific War, the leader of the American school of "geopolitics" Spikman drew a diagram of American imperialist policy in the Pacific and throughout the world, both during the war and after it. This Yale professor and a fascist, in his book "American Strategy in World Politics", published "in 1942, proceeds from the principle: "The state is a tiger to the state." Accordingly, he believes that the United States must either strangle and absorb other countries, or suppress and subjugate them, using one country against another. He proposes to create both in Europe and the Pacific regional alliances of states in which the United States would play the role of an arbitrator and which would be subordinate to the United States. If the United States, when making peace, will pursue only goal of the unification of Europe, then, says Spikman, not worth fighting. Then it is better to help Hitler.
In the Pacific, Spikman sees the greatest danger in the fact that "the American people, even after the war, will for a long time be inclined to consider Japan, and not China, as an enemy" (3) . He declares: "The threat of the conquest of Asia by Japan must be eliminated, but this does not mean the complete destruction of the military power of Japan" (4) (Spikman is also a supporter of maintaining a strong imperialist Germany). According to Spikman, the United States must take the same attitude towards Japan in the Pacific as it does towards Britain in the Atlantic, in order to use Japan against the Soviet Union and China. All this was written in the first weeks after Pearl Harbor! Spikman and a number of other American geopoliticians even recommended leaving Manchuria and Korea under the rule of Japanese imperialism, which would have to play the role of a servant of American monopolies. Geopoliticians also advised turning Taiwan into a bulwark and base of US military and political dominance off the coast of Asia.
The establishment of an "American century" in Asian countries was also demanded by the imperialists Elliot, Luce, the organs of Hearst and McCormick, and other mouthpieces of Wall Street.
In July 1942, the American press published a memorandum by Downey, a representative of the powerful concern General Motors, entitled "America in the Post-War World." Downey developed plans for the world domination of American monopolies. “A real war,” he wrote, “is just a struggle for control of the world ... The British Empire is now as much a part of our country as Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines, Alaska. Since we are participating in the defense of the British Empire, we should have equal rights in the development of resources on its territory. England now needs a strong partner to help her lead the world. This role will be played by the United States in the coming years.”
Already during the war, the tentacles of American monopoly capital were stretching across the Pacific Ocean not only to the Asian peoples Australia, New Zealand also became objects of desire of the American financial oligarchy. Expressing her aspirations, the American publicist and publisher Ziff stated in 1944 in the book Gentlemen of Peace: “Australia can count on a safe position only as the forward base of some huge air empire, capable of providing her with immediate help in a dangerous moment. Australia would be a far-fisted fist in such an empire." Ziff immediately adds: “That power is the United States, and Australia and New Zealand are naturally drawn into their orbit” (5) .
So, these two British dominions should play the role of forward military bases of the new American empire. American "flying fortresses" will provide them with an illusory independence, the same as the "independence" of Canada. What kind of independence, Ziff immediately explains without undue sentimentality: "An attempt by Canada to contact any power hostile to the United States will cause almost immediate occupation of Canadian territory by the United States."
The isolationist newspaper The Chicago Tribune, in an editorial, explicitly offered to turn Australia and New Zealand into American states.
The "liberal" imperialist Wyton, commenting on this proposal, wrote that there was no need to go to extremes. We can limit ourselves to obtaining the right to use these dominions as American bases in the event of war, for it is generally inconceivable that Australia and New Zealand would not take part in a Pacific war in which the United States will participate in the future (6) .
Of course, Asia and the Pacific, according to the assertions of the advocates of American imperialism, is only one of the areas of the globe where the British monopolies must retreat, agreeing to the complete dominion of American monopoly capital. Ziff, by the time the war ended, caustically wrote in his book mentioned above: “In the future, the functions of England in the world economy will not be determined by the exaggerated role that this small island played in the past. The absurdly disproportionate economic power of England was based on enormous financial and naval superiority and will disappear with it. And elsewhere: “After the war, a change in the balance of power will lead to a change in relations between the United States and England. It will be a relationship between strong, wealthy and influential Carthage and the dying island fortress of Tyre.
(1) Economic Survey of Asia and the Far East, Economic Commission for Asia and the East, United Nations, Shanghai 1948, p. 211.
(2) In clear consonance with this was the impudent statement of Churchill-Left Minister Moore-Brabazon that England should stand aside and watch in cold blood as Russians and Germans exhaust each other.
(3) NJ Spikman, America's Strategy in World Politics, New York 1942, p. 469-470.
(5) W. Ziff, The Gentlemen Talk of Peace, Chicago-New York 1944, p. 245.
(6) A. Vlton, American Empire in Asia, New York 1943, p. 261. 20, 307.
6. Aggravation of Anglo-American imperialist contradictions in China
In an effort to turn China into their puppet state, the American imperialists fought not only against the Chinese People's Democracy, headed by the Chinese Communist Party, but also ousted their imperialist rivals, primarily the most dangerous of them, the British capitalists.
Having subjugated the Kuomintang government, American politicians and businessmen tried even during the war to turn it as much as possible against the British, who for a long time had a dominant position in China and who, even after the end of the Second World War, had significant economic positions in that country.
With the outbreak of the Pacific War, the Japanese seized all British and American industrial and commercial enterprises in occupied China. Part of the equipment of industrial enterprises was taken to Japan, some was stolen or fell into disrepair, but a significant part of the enterprises transferred to the Japanese zaibatsu continued to work; some of them have been mothballed. On the whole, British, as well as American and other foreign investments, suffered considerable damage, their real value was greatly reduced. Thus, the size of American and British so-called commercial investments in China decreased considerably by the end of the Second World War.
According to other sources, the total amount of British loans granted to the Kuomintang amounted to thirty-eight million pounds.
While repaying to the United States several loans received during the Sino-Japanese War, the Kuomintang showed no intention of repaying Britain's loans.
After the Second World War, the British government repeatedly made attempts to restore its positions in China, but to no avail: the Kuomintang reaction turned out to be completely monopolized by American imperialism.
The activity of the British imperialists intensified especially in Kuomintang China from the second half of 1946, when it became clear that the American monopolies were aiming to turn China into their fiefdom. At this time Stevenson was appointed as the British ambassador to China in place of Seymour, who frankly declared that the position of "representatives of British business circles in China is unsatisfactory" and that it was his duty to rectify this situation (2). The Labor government firmly pursued a policy of supporting Chinese reaction and establishing the closest possible ties with it.
China was visited by British parliamentary goodwill missions, trade delegations, etc. At the end of 1946, a British trade delegation headed by Beuys visited China, in February 1947 an air mission arrived, at the end of 1947 the Kuomintang cities traveled a parliamentary goodwill mission led by Lord Emmon. Speaking in Nanjing on October 15, 1946, Beuys expressed the hope that the lion's share of China's foreign trade would not be concentrated solely in the hands of the United States.
In an effort to strengthen the position of British imperialism and help Chinese reaction, the Labor government presented 13 British warships as a "gift" to the Kuomintang government. The last two of these ships (the cruiser Aurora and the destroyer Mendip) were handed over to the Nanking government in May 1948. These ships were used by the Kuomintang in the war against the Chinese people.
But the Truman government "donated" 271 warships to the Kuomintang clique. Thus, the English "gift" looked very modest compared to the American one.
At the instigation and under the guidance of American political and economic advisers, after the capitulation of Japan, the Kuomintang authorities not only did not grant the British the same privileges as the Americans, but began to put pressure on the British, trying to completely undermine their economic positions as well.
Individual British enterprises, owing to their extensive experience in semi-colonial conditions or because, in the context of the civil war, the Chinese reaction was in dire need of their products, managed to make ends meet, and some even made very significant profits. Such enterprises included, for example, the Kailan coal mines and ship repair and shipbuilding enterprises in Shanghai.
In 1946, 4 million g of coal was mined at the Kailan mines (an average of .334 thousand g per month). In 1947, the average monthly production was 405 thousand g, with a production capacity of 450 thousand tons. According to the data announced by the chairman of the joint-stock company Nathan at the general meeting of shareholders on December 30, 1947, the company in 1946 suffered a loss of 142.6 thousand pounds Art. However, in the same year, large-scale restoration work was carried out, in particular, equipment for mines worth 200 thousand pounds was purchased in England. Art. (3) .
In 1947, a reserve of 750 thousand tons of coal accumulated in the mines due to the fact that due to the civil war, railway communication was disrupted and there was a shortage of rolling stock.
The Shanghai Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Company received back the docks in Shanghai, destroyed during the Japanese occupation in December 1945. The British press at the end of 1947 stated that in 1946 the enterprise had already generated 700 thousand Hong Kong dollars in profit (4) . The entire share capital of this British company at the beginning of 1947 was 7.9 million Hong Kong dollars.
However, as a rule, English merchants were placed in incomparably less favorable conditions than American ones. In the fall of 1946, the Kuomintang government concluded a treaty with the United States, according to which American trade, as well as all the economic activities of American capital, were given enormous advantages. England entered into negotiations with Nanking to conclude a similar treaty, but the Kuomintang stubbornly refused to grant England the same position in China as the United States.
In view of the political and military successes of the anti-imperialist forces, there was very little hope of repaying British loans granted for the construction of Chinese railways, and already in 1948, the bonds of these loans were quoted very low on the London Stock Exchange, lower than even the bonds of loans granted to Japan. In March 1948, the bonds of eight Chinese railway loans were listed on the London Stock Exchange at prices ranging from £14 to £22. Art. The Japanese 5 per cent loan of 1907 and the Japanese 6 per cent loan of 1924 were quoted at 31 1/2-32 1/2 lb. Art. (5)
As a result of military destruction, Japanese looting and American-Kuomintang pressure, by the end of 1948 the real value of British investments in Kuomintang China could be estimated at no more than one-third of their pre-war value, i.e., approximately 400 million ammo. The political and economic activity of the British imperialists in China, as a result of the direct and indirect pressure of American imperialism, was placed within extremely limited limits.
In connection with the decline of British colonial activity in China, British businessmen sought to revive Hong Kong, where the American imperialists and their Chinese compradors were unable to exert direct pressure on British enterprises. The British base of Hong Kong once again became a stronghold of the British monopolies, which created significant competition for the economic interests of American capital. The population of Hong Kong in 1946 reached 1.6 million people, and in 1949 it exceeded 2 million people. In 1947, Hong Kong's imports reached 390 million am. dollars (in 1937 - 154 million), export - 306 million dollars (in 1937 - 117 million). Taking into account the rise in prices, imports and exports reached approximately pre-war levels with an almost threefold increase in monetary terms. In 1948, Hong Kong's imports were "significantly more valuable than 1947 trade.
In 1947 and 1948 Kuomintang bigwigs, fearing the sad outcome of the civil war for them, began to transfer part of their capital to Hong Kong. In the last two months of 1947 alone, more than three trillion Chinese dollars were transferred to Hong Kong, that is, more than 200 million Hong Kong dollars (6). In 1948, especially since the autumn, the "flight" of capital intensified, and to this was added the "flight" of entire industrial enterprises with all their equipment. Dozens of enterprises, sea tonnage, etc. were transferred from Shanghai to Hong Kong (7) .
Currency and commodity speculation, as well as speculation in diamonds imported from South Africa, flourished widely in Hong Kong.
A very important source of income for the British colonialists in Hong Kong was smuggling, which reached grandiose proportions. The annual total smuggled imports into China were estimated by the Nanjing government in 1946 and 1947 in the amount of 100 million am. dollars, smuggled exports - in the amount of about 30 million dollars (8) These estimates, apparently, are two times less than the actual value of smuggled imports and exports. About a third of all smuggling went through Hong Kong. Smuggled imports to China through Hong Kong and Macau were estimated in 1947 at 326 million Hong Kong dollars, smuggled exports at 108 million (9) In 1948, Hong Kong's influence in South China in the commercial sphere increased so much that, according to the American press, the Hong Kong dollar, issued by the Hong Kong-Shanghai Bank, actually became the second currency in some provinces. In Guangdong, for example, prices were actually determined in Hong Kong dollars, a currency more stable than the Kuomintang dollar (10) .
Hong Kong also benefited greatly from the fact that remittances from overseas Chinese to their families and relatives after the war began to flow mainly to Hong Kong or through Hong Kong. Prior to the Japanese attack on China, the number of annual transfers from abroad reached about 200 million US dollars and exceeded one third of all foreign exchange receipts in China. In 1946, the amount of these transfers was only 36 million dollars, and in 1947 - 12 million. Due to the extremely unfavorable official exchange rate of foreign currency for the Kuomintang, transfers from abroad went mainly to Hong Kong through a variety of channels and in various forms. Thus, for example, only from the United States to Hong Kong in 1946 received transfers worth 25 million US dollars. dollars (11) .
By 1950, Hong Kong's industry had reached the pre-war level, and in some sectors (shipyards, electric companies) exceeded it.
As a result of all this, the English businessmen and bankers in Hong Kong made great profits. Already in 1946, according to the official report of the Hong Kong-Shanghai Bank, its profit was 9.6 million Hong Kong dollars, and a dividend of 3l. Art. per share. The British colonialists profited by plundering the Chinese people, which aroused the envy of the American imperialist robbers. The prosperity of the imperialist rival in Hong Kong was a thorn in the side of the American monopolies.
Faking the sentiments of the Chinese people, the American colonialists suddenly started talking about the fact that "it's time to return Hong Kong to China." The American imperialists in this case were not averse to playing on the anti-British slogan. Demanding the British to give up Hong Kong, they intended to get it under their control.
Under American-Kuomintang pressure, the British authorities in Hong Kong in 1948 had to impose some, at least formal, restriction on smuggling. Back in August 1947, an "agreement on financial matters" was concluded between the Nanjing government and Hong Kong. However, the Hong Kong authorities postponed its implementation from month to month. Finally, on January 5, 1948, it was announced that certain articles of this agreement were being put into effect, namely: the import and export of Chinese currency worth more than five million whales from Hong Kong were prohibited. Doll.; when exporting Chinese antimony, bristles, tea, tin, tungsten and some other goods from Hong Kong, the exporter is obliged to present a document stating that the currency received for these goods has been transferred or will be transferred to Kuomintang banks ( 12) .
By waging a stubborn economic struggle against American importers and using Hong Kong as a base, the British imperialists managed to slightly improve their position in terms of imports to Kuomintang China. The share of England in the official customs imports of Kuomintang China rose in 1948 to 8.4% against 6.9% in 1947 (in 1937 the share of England was 11.7%). In China's exports, Britain's share was 6.6% in 1947 and 6.7% in 1948 (9.2% in 1937) (13) .
British imperialism stubbornly fought for its positions in Tibet. In 1947, in connection with the granting of the statute of dominion to India, the British mission in Tibet was replaced by an Indian one. However, the Englishman Robertson remained at the head of the mission, and the British continued their policy of enslaving Tibet; yet their influence waned.
While fighting against the British positions in Hong Kong, the Americans and their clerks even tried to use the incident that arose in connection with the eviction by the Hong Kong authorities of 2,000 Chinese from their homes in the rented territory of Kowloon. American propaganda and American agents tried to stir up anti-British sentiments on this issue, while at the same time trying to deflect the anti-imperialist sentiments of the Chinese people from themselves.
In mid-January 1948, a few days after the so-called "Kowloon Incident" and after the Kuomintang press of Canton had furiously attacked the British, a large group of Chinese, with the explicit approval of the Chinese Kuomintang police, burned down and destroyed the British Consulate General and the buildings of several British firms in Canton. This group carried American flags and anti-British banners, shouting "Down with the British imperialists!" The group consisted mainly of persons dressed in the uniform of the Kuomintang "youth corps", it moved in formations, and the British at first believed that it was sent by the authorities to protect the consulate (14) .
All this should not come as a surprise, if we remember that the supreme power in Canton at that time was one of the most prominent compradors of the American financial oligarchy, Sun Tzu-wen. In the very days when the Chinese press published photographs showing members of the Kuomintang "youth corps" tearing down the English flag and setting fire to the British consulate, Song Tzu-wen tried to blame the Communists for these actions.
It soon became clear, however, that the American agents were playing with fire. In the demonstrations that followed, not only in Canton, but also in other Chinese cities, the slogan "Down with the British imperialists!" the people added slogans: "Get American troops out of China!", "The more American guns, the more dead Chinese!"
Thus, in the context of the great people's revolution in China, the demagogic maneuvers of the American imperialists turned against them.
The defeat in 1949 of the forces of imperialism and reaction in China by the democratic forces led by the Communist Party transferred the Anglo-American imperialist contradictions in that country to a new plane.
In 1948 and 1949, especially on the eve of the final defeat of the Kuomintang troops by the People's Liberation Army, the British reactionaries in every possible way provoked their American colleagues into even more brazen interference in China's internal affairs. The Economist, in an article published on the day of the liberation of Nanjing and entitled "The Last Hour in China", wrote that "during the civil war in China, no definite decisions have yet been reached in one direction or another." Encouraging the forces of Chinese reaction and the American interventionists, the magazine argued: "There are no strategic grounds for the surrender of government armies in the south without further military operations."
The Economist, seeking to rake in the heat in the struggle against the Chinese masses by proxy, called on the United States to provide assistance to the Kuomintang government in order to enable it to hold on as a "regional government." The magazine frightened the US president and secretary of state by saying that "their political careers are largely dependent on the implementation of American policy in China."
During the critical days of the People's Liberation Army crossing the Yangtze, the British militarists made an attempt to provide military assistance to the Chinese reaction. Four British warships appeared on the Yangtze near Nanjing. Together with the Kuomintang ships, they exchanged fire with the people's liberation forces. According to the command of the People's Liberation Army, as a result of the attack by British ships, 252 soldiers of the People's Liberation Army were killed and wounded (15) The British also suffered losses in men: according to their reports, 46 English sailors were killed and 82 were wounded.
What motives guided the British militarists in sending warships to the Yangtze? After all, it was quite clear that against the powerful military forces of the People's Liberation Army, four British warships (in addition to the collapsed Kuomintang military forces) were nothing.
It is clear from the general political line of the British imperialists that they simply decided to test the method of military-political blackmail. They tried with the help of their ships to put pressure on the democratic camp of China and on the command of the people's armed forces. At the same time, sending these ships was an attempt to provide moral and political support to the Kuomintang reaction. British imperialists hoped to strengthen their ties and increase their influence in the camp of Chinese reaction.
In addition, and this was a particularly important reason, the British wanted to call the United States to an even more active armed action against the people's liberation forces. If a direct and extensive military intervention of the United States were launched in China, then, according to the calculations of the British monopolists, such an open armed intervention would lead to a serious weakening of their main imperialist rival. The hopes of the British imperialists were not realized. In the face of the inevitable victory of the Chinese people, London turned its maneuvers in a different direction. The question of establishing ties with people's democratic China was put on the order of the day in order to use this tie to undermine people's democracy from within to the maximum benefit of British capital and to the detriment of other imperialists. British Foreign Secretary Bevin, speaking on June 9, 1949, at the annual conference of the Labor Party in Blackpool, frankly, declared that "regardless of who wins in China, it would be unreasonable to harm ourselves." As the struggle of the imperialists for foreign markets intensified, the British capitalists, provoking the Americans to more active and direct intervention in favor of the bankrupt Kuomintang reaction.
During the first months of 1949, British shipowners maintained almost monopoly communications with the ports of People's Democratic China from Hong Kong. But at the end of May of the same year, Reuters reported that "English shipowners will soon lose their monopoly on the profitable Hong Kong-Tianjin line," since two Norwegian steamers will begin to run on it. Separate American steamships, carrying cargo to San Francisco, also began to call at Tianjin. The large Kailan mines in Northern China and a number of other enterprises in which British capital was invested continued to operate in People's Democratic China.
The question of trade and economic relations with people's democratic China became especially acute after the liberation of Shanghai and the entire lower and middle reaches of the Yangtze. Since the question of trade and other economic activities is directly related to the question of diplomatic relations, in the spring of 1949, meetings began between British and American statesmen, as well as Australian, Dutch and other diplomats, on the issue of recognizing People's China.
The reports in the British and American press reflected the contradictions that had arisen on the question of the attitude towards people's democratic China between the imperialist powers, primarily between Britain and the United States.
Anglo-American contradictions began to receive more and more publicity. The Dutch newspaper De Maasbode already noted at the end of May 1949 that the United States was advocating the creation of a united front against "Red China".
Senator Bridges on June 21, 1949, openly expressed indignation at the British policy in China in the US Senate, arguing that the British were "along with the Chinese Communists" and that they were preparing to recognize the "communist regime." As a reprisal, he threatened to revise the "Marshall Plan" in the part relating to England ...
Not only against people's democratic China, but to a certain extent also against British trade, the threat of a blockade of the ports that were in the hands of the people's power was directed. This blockade, which extended to sea and air traffic, was announced by the Kuomintang radio on June 20, 1949. The blockade was supposed to come into force on June 26, but already on June 21, two aircraft of American origin, and possibly with American pilots in the service of the Kuomintang, bombed and fired on the Huangpu River near Shanghai, the English steamer EnSkys, which was damaged and ran aground. British Deputy Foreign Secretary Mayhew, speaking on this subject in the House of Commons, declared that an attack by Kuomintang aviation on a British steamship was completely illegal.
Such attacks against British trade and other economic interests by the puppets of the American monopolies only testified to the fact that the collapse of the American imperialist policy in China, already in the situation created in the summer of 1949, led not only to the general defeat of imperialism in China, including British imperialism, but also to some weakening of the position of Wall Street in the Far East in relation to its rival.
The British imperialists sought to take advantage of the failure of American policy in China. Despite the continued influence of the US State Department, the London government intended to recognize the People's Government of China before the end of 1949. Under pressure from the US, they kept postponing this act. Only at the beginning of January 1950 did London, simultaneously with the recognition of the Chinese People's Government, announce the severance of diplomatic relations with the remnants of the Kuomintang regime who had taken refuge in Taiwan.
The diplomatic gestures of the British government, undertaken to secure and expand the economic interests of British imperialism and, above all, to preserve large British investments in China and to the detriment of the policy of the main imperialist enemy, the United States, did not in any way change the main line of British policy, which for many years built on deep hostility towards the Chinese people for decades. On the contrary, the double-dealing policy of the British representatives in the United Nations, their support for the American "bosses" on all matters of any importance relating to China, showed that London's aggressive policy towards China, its assistance to American imperialism against China, does not change, but the British the imperialists themselves tried to temporarily stand aside, fearing in the current international situation to take a direct part in a big war against China. Their goal was not only to wage war against the popular liberation movement in the colonies to the last American soldier, but they hoped that the deeper the Washington government got bogged down in military operations in the Far East, the more chances they would have to weaken the "senior partner" inside imperialist bloc, and the greater will be the hopes for the strengthening of British monopolies. By making hypocritical maneuvers in relation to the People's Republic of China, the British government at the same time supported American aggression against China and other peoples of the Far East.
Meanwhile, Washington politicians themselves made plans to fight in Europe and other parts of the world "to the last English", "to the last French", "to the last West German" and other soldiers. With their arrogance and self-confidence, it never occurred to them that the London "junior partners" might try to make the same calculations in relation to the "superior American race."
The political turmoil that arose among imperialist diplomats in connection with the defeat of MacArthur's troops in North Korea at the end of 1950 probably opened the eyes of even the most swaggering leaders of the American big bourgeoisie. By continuing to support American military aggression in Korea and against China in every possible way, openly endorsing even the transformation of Taiwan into an American military base, shamelessly agreeing to vote for the shameful American resolution declaring the People's Republic of China an "aggressor", the British government in the Attlee-Truman negotiations in December 1950 evaded, however, at that moment and in that international situation, participation in a direct armed attack on the People's Republic of China and in expanding the war in Korea to the scale of a big war in the Far East, which was demanded by the American government. Thus, if the American imperialists were counting on the fact that in the war they were fomenting, the British and other "junior partners" and puppets would pull chestnuts out of the fire for them, then the British imperialists were building the same projects in relation to the Americans. As a result of all this, the cracks in the camp of the aggressors not only became obvious, but they widened significantly, and no matter how hard the lackeys of Wall Street and the City tried to mask this fact, they could not do it.
A quarter of a century ago, pointing to the great importance of China, which it had as an object of exploitation in the system of the capitalist world economy, Comrade Stalin said: “China is a nationally compact country of several hundred million people, constituting the most important market for the sale and export of capital throughout the world. » (16) . As a result of the victory of people's democracy in China, imperialism lost this most important market for sales and export of capital.
(1) North China Daily News, January 1, 1948.
(2) See V. Yarovoy, England and China, Izvestia, March 2, 1947.
(3) The Times, January 27, 1948.
( 4) North China Daily News, December 12, 1947.
(5) North China Daily News, March 8, 1948.
(6) North China Daily News, December 27, 1947.
(7) The Far Eastern Survey magazine in the autumn of 1948 stated: "Hong Kong has siphoned off a large part of Shanghai's pre-war assets." Tonnage, bank deposits, securities, boards of foreign companies were transferred to Hong Kong.
(8) Economic Survey of Asia and the Far East, 1947, p. 225.
(9) "Economic Survey", cit, p. 207.
(10) New York Times, March 28, 1948.
(11) North China Daily News, January 28, 1948.
(12) North China Daily News, January 5, 1948.
(13) Economic Survey, 1948, p. 240.
(14) North China Daily News, January 19, 1948.
(15) See Pravda, May 7, 1949.
(16) I. V. Stalin, Soch., vol. 9, p. 257